The stumpy kings taken outta Old Harbor remind me of the freakish rainbows those twin brothers from Canada claimed back-to-back world records with.





Quick, somebody call Jenny Craig!

OK... one more and I'm done.

Some fish just don't need any long armin'.... except when it takes a fully extended reach just to get around its belly! Crikey boys, check this one out!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

We've had a lot of discussion on this board about the LONG odds of chinook surviving the killing fields of northern intercept fisheries for 3, 4, 5, even 6 years. Old Harbor is just one of those places where it's real easy to see that they're exploiting kings that obviously do not spawn in Kodiak. And to be absolutely clear, it's certainly not unique in that regard. Hundreds of small coastal fisheries are intercepting salmon originating from basins far removed from the point of capture.

I tried to interject those thoughts on the AK board last year. Click on the thread below to see how well these ideas were received....

http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/80869-early-early-EARLY-morning-bite!

Couple more threads about what our neighbors to the north think about this issue....

http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/79720-Why-not-leave-Kings-alone-in-the-salt

http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/83045-Low-holing-in-grand-Alaska-style

OK... I have the answer to the mystery question....

"Whose giant white kings are getting low-holed in Kodiak?"

I finally sent the DNA off for analysis on Monday (yeah, like 2 days ago) and I already have the answer! Friends in low places I guess?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Here's the response....

You were in luck – we were running some in-season samples today so I got the genotype! I assigned it to the GAPs Chinook baseline and it had a high likelihood of assignment (99.9%) to Lower Kalum River on the Skeena, so it looks like Coastal Canada genetically.

My original thought about what river consistently produces 60, 70, 80-pound caliber chinook was one of three possible places. Kenai, Skeena, or Rivers Inlet. Fraser was thrown into the mix for its propensity to produce a lot of white kings. And we even had a bio in AK comment that he thought these were Fraser origin. But there's no real evidence to support the ability to produce GIANT white kings. Kenai was thrown out because it produces ZERO white kings and even its giant fish are NOT built like that. Rivers Inlet (Wannock River) was thrown out because John Beath (outdoor writer and former Rivers Inlet lodge operator) said their fish don't look like that.

So there you have it... we've come full circle... iron-clad proof it's a Skeena fish!

WOW.... mystery solved.

Hmmm, who would a thunk it . They should be showing up here any day now

Just think of all those Yukon Kings who visit Russia and never return.

Remember to save a few for the gravel.

(Read sig line below)

The Kitsumkalum (Kalum) River grows some mighty special chinook.... a BIG race of giant kings comparable to the Kenai's.

Adults (anything over 65 cm... roughly 25.5 inches) in the early component of the run are protected thru June 30. Been that way for at least 10 years. This is very similar to the Kenai River ER slot limit only MUCH more restrictive.... basically only jacks may be retained.

They have a 37-day season on adults.... one per day.... from July 1 thru Aug 6. The fish get a free pass from Aug 7 forward.

http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/fresh-douce/region6-eng.htm
(scroll about halfway down to find Kitsumkalum)

I can't imagine why I didn't think of the Kalum. I have fished it several times, and while I never did hook one of those mosters I saw a bank angler get his azz handed to him by a monster big king.

There is a stretch of the Skeena, near Terrace, that is open only to bank angling. It is a truly epic fishery. Many are hooked - few are landed. i have always thought it is perhaps the coolest salmon fishery I have even seen.

Some interesting fellows on that board. You talked about lack of Hatchery fish returning in numbers and the guy kept calling out habitat. Life outside the box is scary for some.

there is a tackle store in Terrace that has a picture of a fish that was caught for hatchery brood stock that weighed in at 107lbs. Some lunkers up there for sure

rln...

So the Kalum is planted with chinook?

Got a phone number for the hatchery? Got questions about life history. Or maybe you know.

Are the Lower Kalum fish a stream-type (one year or more fresh before smolting) or ocean-type chinook (sub-yearling smolts)?

http://bcadventure.com/adventure/angling/river/skeena.phtml

Fishery employees have found carcasses of Chinook spawned out along the banks of the Skeena system that weighed more than 107-pounds!

Ninety per cent of the Chinook in the Skeena River are wild fish. Some hatchery Chinook do exist, but most are wild fish.

I have a few ignorant questions, but must say that is one of the most beautiful kings I have seen in a while.

Is a white king based entirely on genetics or does diet have anything to do with it?

I seem to have caught a few clipped fish (hatchery) that seemed white. Was I mistaken?

For the record, here's the official explanation for red vs white kings:

The ability of a salmon to store carotene in the fat cells is controlled genetically. So a sockeye salmon (red) stores carotene in its fat cells and a chum salmon metabolize it into a colorless Vitamin A. For a chinook salmon flesh color is determined by two genes in a duplicate recessive gene interaction. Here is a list that will help explain this. It comes from an ADF&G publication. The genotype is the combination of capital and small case letters and the flesh color is defined.

AA,BB -red flesh color,
AABb - red,
AA,bb - white,
Aa,BB - red,
Aa,Bb - red,
Aa,bb - white,
aa,BB - white,
aa,Bb - white,
aa,bb - white.

You can see from this that if a dominant gene (A and B) are both present then the flesh color is red.

The genes for white kings are rare in Alaska. A higher percentage is found in the Pacific Northwest.

How red a fish is or just a pink color depends on the amount of pigment in their diet. However, a white king cannot become a red king no matter the diet because the genes controlling the process are not available.

I can't help but think this whole pigment storage defect must somehow be related to the critter's fat metabolism. These kings are extremely oily, esp for a fall chinook. As for that fat, stumpy physique.... a picture paints a 1000 words.

I have caught a few kings that have kind of marbled red white meat. It would be interesting to know what gene combination creates that coloring.

Marbled = genetic mosaic or chimera.

So if an Aa bb spawned with an aa Bb, what portion of the offspring would have red meat?

25% red.... 75% white.

One of those white parents will produce 50% Ab and 50% ab gametes. The other white parent will produce 50% aB and 50% ab gametes. The likelihood of red meat from this pairing ( genotype Aa Bb) is 50% x 50% = 25%.